Input on Lee Enfield No4 Mk1

[Badger]

Jay Currah's Enfield Rifle - Images and Markings

Regards,
Doug

[Ubet]

Thanks Badger,
I had looked at that page. When Rob mentioned it being FTRd I thought maybe I had missed something. Unless they would put the FTR mark under the wood.

[Beerhunter]

V interesting point: Did the lend/lease programme send arms to South Africa?

Not this one Rob. Unless of course they moved Fazackerly to the US, and carried on supplying SA after the end of the Lend-Lease Act in 1945.

[Badger]

RobD, Where do I look to find an FTR marking on the rifle? I only saw the serial number for the 2/49 manufacture date.

Jay Currah - Receiver Markings

Compare your receiver wall against the bottom pic in the link above ..

Regards,
Doug

[Ubet]

Doug, Thank you I just hadn't seen other numbers engraved on the receiver or the wrist area, so I wasn't aware just this meant it was FTRd.

[Brian Dick]

It's not a British FTR. I can't tell from the pictures but if it's blued and not black Suncorite 259 paint, (or remnants thereof), on the metal, chances are it's been FTR'd in South Africa. There won't be distinct markings but if you pull the handguards, it may have a S/A replacement barrel with the date of installation stamped on it. I had several just like it mixed in with the 400 or so S/A owned No.4's I bought and sold over many years. Check the buttplate too. If it has "SAN" stamped on it, it's S/A Navy issue. The reason I mention that is that several I had with "SAN" markings had the woodwork varnished just like yours.

[Ubet]

Thank you Brian. I'll look for those markings.

[Ubet]

Estimate of current value for a rifle like this?

[RobD]

V sorry, I mis-read the original message. I read this as a Savage lend/lease rifle with Fazakerly FTR and Union of S Africa stamps. My (erroneous) logic then being that because Savage only made rifles during WW2, 1949 must be the FTR date. But Fazakerly still made rifles post-war, so this logic doesn't apply, and yours is a Fazakerly rifle.

AFAIK, the term lend/lease refers narrowly to the relationship between the US and the Allies for the brief period during WW2 prior to Pearl Harbour. The relationship of Britain to South Africa was a very close and very prolonged bond, so the rifle would have been provided to the Union by some other conventional arrangement.

Being mistaken as to the origin of the rifle, I was wondering whether the US lend/lease programme sent materiel directly to S Africa during WW2, and the S African 1941-dated Harley Davidsons suggest they did do this - versus the US supplying Britain who then supplied S Africa. It would make sense to avoid the North Atlantic U-boats by direct supply, too. But somebody will know for sure whether the US send lend/lease to S Africa.

[Ubet]

RobD, Thank you.